How's this for a solution?

[Gmart]

OK, so it seems to be fair to say that the Palestinians were indeed invaded by an Israelis force which proceded to set up "the Jewish state of Israel".

However, what is past is past, and despite the interesting adoption of the role of oppressor, the invasion has to stand. The Palestinians need to accept that they have been invaded; and invaded by a religious state at that, which contrasts completely with their religion and allows them only token freedom of movement.

Furthermore, the most usual suggested solution is the two-state solution. However both people are so intertwined geographically, that this may prove difficult, and in any case the Muslims have the concept of 'Hudni' which allows the pretense of surrender in exchange for enough time to gather strength to continue the fight.

Thus the only solution would seem to be the one that neither side wants, ie. a secular state which incorporates both Israel and Palestine, and which has equality of opportunity for both sides to get on in the economy, to have a family and to live, so that they finally have something to lose by turning to violence.

Therefore compromise from both sides, and an acceptance that they are both there, and so they need to find a way to get along, whatever their differences.

What d'ya think?

 

[laptop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

 

[moono]

Laptop's link- final line;

Facing the Hamas challenge, in June 2006, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for a controversial referendum by Palestinians on whether to proceed with negotiations for a two-state solution with Israel.

Then the Zionists shelled a Palestinian beach and slaughtered another family.

 

[Gmart]

Compromise Ahoy!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

Thankyou Laptop, very enlightening. It would seem to be an unavoidable end to this conflict. Most importantly:

It would seem to solve some of the problems immediately. Neither side should be scared of this solution as it seems to be the best chance at peace. The one-state solution neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character.

The alternative, Apartheid, (ie a form of racial segregation) should not be allowed to occur.

Since the Palestinian and Jewish populations are so intermingled (a million Palestinians live throughout Israel while some 400,000 Jews live throughout the Occupied Territories), the feasibility of a two-state solution seems unworkable. Thus a single binational state would seem the only way forward. None of the actors are yet ready for such a shift - not the Palestinians, not the international community, not the peace and human rights activists, not world Jewry and certainly not Israeli Jews. However, regardless of how they feel about a single state, it is time they begin to prepare themselves conceptually and programmatically for such an eventuality.

In our framing of the campaign for a single state, we should stress that as much as Israel might object, it is its own settlement and incorporation policies that are responsible. Since a Palestinian "state"-cum-bantustan, the only alternative entertained by Israel, is totally unacceptable and unworkable, Israel has brought the single state solution upon itself. A two-state solution that leaves Israel intact has been proposed by both the Palestinians and by the Arab League through the Saudi initiative. Indeed, it is a basic term of reference in the road map. As in the case of South Africa, however, where apartheid was put in place by white South African governments, Israel has only itself to blame if it has created, through its own settlement and occupation policies, a single state. Despite repeated warnings from the critical peace camp, successive Israeli governments, Labor as well as Likud, have locked the country into such a dead-end situation. The Israeli public may not support the vision of a "Greater Land of Israel" (recent polls say 65% of Israelis would like "separation" from the Occupied Territories), but its support of governments pursuing such policies makes it complicit and ultimately responsible.

When the struggle for two states becomes a struggle for one democratic state, we must make it crystal clear that this development arises exclusively out of Israel's refusal to countenance a viable Palestinian state on even 22% of the country.

The penalty for succumbing to the settlers' single-minded pursuit of Greater Israel is the dissolution of the Jewish state. Many Israelis, and other Jews, will argue that historic justice demands a Jewish state. They will insist that, particularly after centuries of horrendous Jewish suffering culminating in the Holocaust, there should be one place on Earth where the Jews can exercise their natural right to sovereignty. They are absolutely right, but, unfortunately, given the choice between sovereignty and land, they chose land. They have manifestly preferred settlement in the whole Land of Israel to a state of Israel in part of the land. It is irrelevant that the settlers are a small minority. The rest of them have permitted them to do what they wanted.

The vast majority of Israeli Jews are certain to demur though, viewing this idea of a single state as a recipe for national suicide, not salvation. Many will argue that they live in a democratic society, enjoy freedom of the press, freedom to say almost anything they want, and have developed a modern economy and a functioning legal system. The Palestinians have none of these.

Despite the Palestinians demand for an independent state, they reacted with something approaching panic whenever they got close to achieving it. In 1947, they rejected the UN partition plan; in 1967 they rejected Israel's willingness to withdraw from the territories in exchange for peace; in 1977 they "scornfully" turned down Anwar Sadat's invitation to join his peace initiative; and at Camp David in 2000 they "failed to come up with a counterproposal to Barak's unprecedented suggestions for a settlement that offered them an independent state. So, if the Jews have not been sufficiently enthusiastic about an independent state, the Palestinians have been almost pathological in their rejection of one.

Have we finally come to the time of compromise though? Or can Israel get away with it for longer in the belief that they can somehow avoid this outcome? If both sides don't learn to compromise soon this conflict could become bloodier than either could imagine.

 

[david dissadent]

The problem with the single state solution is that the Jews would be in the minority. Israel is not about the right of Jews to have a nation. It is about there belief that they and they alone can be counted on to prevent another genocide. It is NOT a trivial fear.

Whether it is true that an Arab majority state would not be trusted to protect its Jewish minorty from progroms and extermination is almost a moot point. The Jews dont believe it would. And they have nuclear bombs to back up there fear. No one is going to force them into an Arab majority state.

All other discussion is hypothetical.

 

[david dissadent]

The alternative, Apartheid, (ie a form of racial segregation) should not be allowed to occur.

Since the Palestinian and Jewish populations are so intermingled (a million Palestinians live throughout Israel while some 400,000 Jews live throughout the Occupied Territories), the feasibility of a two-state solution seems unworkable.

It is not appartheid. It is ethnic groups following there right to Wilsonian self determination. Do you call the breakup of Chekeslovakia apartheid? Would you call Kurdish desire for self determination apartheid?
A Jewish minority in a Palastinian state and an Arab minority in a Jewish state.


It is workable. It works all round the world. The Isrealis need to allow Palastine to form into a state. Or allow Egypt and Jordan to absorb parts of the occupied territory, in Egypts case perhaps as a protectorate.

 

[Gmart]

But they won't, and are forcing themselves and the Palestinians towards the single state solution.

If they were so concerned about keeping the control you describe, they would have concentrated on getting less land, and creating the Israelis state. By going for more land they have implicitly gone for a single state solution.

 

[FruitandNut]

The problem is that people have long memories that tend to be short on detail that doesn't suit. There are disputed and contradictory claims for the land. The Palestinians claim ties to the land from the earliest times. The fact is that the word Palestine has only recently been legally recognised. 'Palestinians' were in fact sea bourne invaders from the Greek peninsula and not Arab. The truth is that a few families have lived in the land for many generations but this represents only a small fraction of the Arab population that now claim such close ties to the land. Arabs moved into the land as the Jewish people returned and began building a national infrastructure. Because the Jewish people were investing money in the process of reclaiming the land and building it up, jobs were available. As a result, many Arabs migrated into the area.

The real reason for the Palestinian claim to the land is religious and not due to the longevity of the Arab population there. This is never admitted in the Western media because this fact alone is sufficient to doom any "peace plan". The Land of Israel was one of the first areas overrun by Moslems as they began conquest outside the Arabian peninsular. It was taken about 635 AD. With the conquest, the land became the territory of Islam, dar al Islam. Once an area is considered dar al Islam it can never be relinquished to non-Moslems. Therefore, the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in the Land of Israel is seen as the utmost evil. There can be no compromise by fundamental Islam concerning this matter. Any compromise agreement made by Moslems will likely be considered temporary until they can gain sufficient strength to enforce their will.

There has always been a small Jewish presence in the Land of Israel dating back to the time of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan. However, since the end of the Second Temple era, only a small number managed to hold on in the land. In fact, Samuel Clement (Mark Twain) travelled through the land around 1870 and found the land largely unpopulated. The population only swelled to its present number as the Jewish people returned and began building up the land.

The rationale for the formation of the modern state of Israel was humanistic. After the holocaust, it was recognized that the Jewish people needed a homeland which could serve as a refuge for them. Thus a majority of nations approved the formation of the state in 1948. The British government felt at the time that a large influx of dispossessed Jews from Europe would exacerbate an already fragile situation. After a blockading of the coast {the pro-Zionist film 'Exodus' was based on this time] Britain yielded to UN/American pressure and that allowed modern Israel to be formed.

So we conclude that there has been both Arab and Jewish inhabitants in the land for hundreds of years even though their numbers have been very small. If we consider the conflicting claims to the land from a purely humanistic perspective then a "fair" compromise is difficult to arrive at. This is the reason why diplomats with purely secular, humanistic outlooks find the problem so difficult.

 

[Gmart]

I appreciate the history of the case, indeed the thread 'Did Palestine exist' went into too much detail for me. By that rationale the US should hand itself back to the Native Americans.

The fact remains that both people want to be there and need to find a way to live there. The Israelis need to accept that the area they have gone for has many Palestinians on it, who are free to follow a different religion, which also considers certain parts of Jerusalem as sacred for different reasons.

This one state solution seems to be the only solution which can move forward, as the link given by Laptop in #2 makes all too clear.

 

[TAE]

The 'solution' is to stop hating each other. Unless that happens, neither the one-state nor the two-state solution will have any chance.

 

[LumpenProle]

This is the reason why diplomats with purely secular, humanistic outlooks find the problem so difficult.[/B]

I disagree. I think the majority of people, and in particular secular, humanistic, and indeed rational diplomats know exactly what the soluion is, and it's formed the basis of pretty much all of the viable peace settlements tabled thus far.

 

[Gmart]

The Israelis need to accept that they are now on the path to a single state due to their reluctance to compromise earlier.

The Palestinians need to accept that they have been invaded, and that the Israelis are there to stay. They also need to have equality of opportunity with the Israelis so that they have no one to blame for any misfortune but themselves. If they have nothing to lose they will return to violence at the first opportunity, if they have an equal opportunity to make something of their life and to have a family etc., then they would be more reluctant to turn to violence.

This end will not occur if left to them. Both sides have proved over and over to be unable to bring about a lasting peace and thus, with the same argument as that given for invading Iraq it will have to be imposed from outside before it blows up into even more of a problem.

I appreciate that the numbers issue is quite important and it has been suggested that Israel would not go for a single state because they would be in the minority. However observers suggest that to begin with the Israelis would have the power to define the new state on their own terms to some degree. The numbers issue with the higher birth rate in Arabian families would only become an issue later when the situation has calmed down. This means that this solution needs to be done sooner rather than later.

 

[subversplat]

[Tarrant]Is that your final solution?[/Tarrant]

Sorry, I have nothing to add, I just wanted to make that joke

 

[Gmart]

The one state solution still seems to remain the only choice.

 

[rhys gethin]

The single state is the only possibility, but it won't be accepted until the US decides to sell out its hitmen, I suppose. Can't be long, I should think.

 

[moono]

America will dump Israel as America shrinks. That's inevitable, imo.

The worry is wondering who will pick up the Zionist's tab and why. Perhaps nobody will. Beaudy.

 

[weltweit]

I cannot see a one state solution being acceptable by either side. The Jews want their homeland and the Palestinians their state. They have shown by their actions that they cannot live together, at least all those involved in the fighting have.

Personally I think the issue is that Palestine needs a contiguous state, not the west bank over here and Gaza over there, but one country with one border.

Then they can both build walls around themselves to feel safe and lob stones over their walls at each other .. stones being better than what they are doing at the moment.

 

[lobster]

I cannot see a one state solution being acceptable by either side. The Jews want their homeland and the Palestinians their state. They have shown by their actions that they cannot live together, at least all those involved in the fighting have.

Personally I think the issue is that Palestine needs a contiguous state, not the west bank over here and Gaza over there, but one country with one border.

Then they can both build walls around themselves to feel safe and lob stones over their walls at each other .. stones being better than what they are doing at the moment.

i agree that the country *must* be divided down the middle equally, not like toppings on a pizza.

The idea that stones will be the worst each can do to each other is very wrong, considering the history of both countries.
Whats to say that there are not rocket launchers behind either wall?

 

[weltweit]

The idea that stones will be the worst each can do to each other is very wrong, considering the history of both countries.
Whats to say that there are not rocket launchers behind either wall?

I accept that even two states will not provide full peace, there will still be some who will hate and want to remain as terrorists .. perhaps after a time this would die down .. but it would be a move towards equality and fairness and justice .. and a better standard of living for the Palestinians.

 

[rhys gethin]

The notion of two states depends on the idea that the Zionists will agree to give up something, negotiate freely, be honest. In fact, they demand that any Palestinian authority should accept their case from the start (like the unfortunate Arafat, who got nothing by it) demand that authority act like concentration-camp guards by killing any patriot who opposes the Occupation - and whenever there is any faint possibility of agreement, they stage a provocation then use the response as a reason to break off negotiation. Give the Palestinians their Country back AND give the fanatics their Greater Israel - but have them in the same place, with a Right of Compensated Return for all the people pushed out, an outlawing of religious discrimination and International guarantees. No - there's not A LOT of hope for that - but there is no hope at all for two states without huge international involvement in policing the borders, and I don't think we'll get that.

 

[Gmart]

I cannot see a one state solution being acceptable by either side. The Jews want their homeland and the Palestinians their state. They have shown by their actions that they cannot live together, at least all those involved in the fighting have.

i agree that the country *must* be divided down the middle equally, not like toppings on a pizza.

Both these comments illustrate EXACTLY why the one state is the only solution, and thus will be the one imposed when eventually America stops turning a blind eye to what the Israelis are up, and when the Palestinians finally realise that they have been invaded and that for the sake of the future they need to accept this and create a single nation with tolerance for all different religions and equality of opportunity for all etc.

The land cannot be divided in a way which would not upset either side. Thus the only solution is to create a new state. America and Israel will try and get the best parts of the land, and this will simply be oppressing the Palestinians again, and they will not put down their guns until they have been persuaded by true compromise.

The Jewish State of Israel as an experiment will then finally end as it should never really have started with this inherently discriminatory beginning.

This end is inevitable also because neither side is willing to compromise at all. Sadly it will eventually get to a point of disaster and only then will America insist on a lasting solution.

With a single solution both sides compromise, but both sides also get the right to live, and so long as the equality of opportunity is rigorous, the Palestinians would gain from having a modern state which they can take part in.

Sadly this could all take a hundred years. Especially if the Americans continue in their hope for the 2 state solution which would just continue the conflict, even if there is a temporary peace in the form of a Hudna (see here)

 

[Udo Erasmus]

FRUIT AND NUT is quoting arguments popularised in a book by Joan Peters called "Fromtime immemorial". The scholarship of this book has been thoroughly discredited and it is not taken seriously by anyone, but it has been a bestseller and is regularly quoted by people.

If you read Norman Finkelstein's Israel,Palestine: Image and reality of a conflict he exposes the utter spuriousness of this book.

 

[moono]

F&N;

So we conclude that there has been both Arab and Jewish inhabitants in the land for hundreds of years even though their numbers have been very small. If we consider the conflicting claims to the land from a purely humanistic perspective then a "fair" compromise is difficult to arrive at. This is the reason why diplomats with purely secular, humanistic outlooks find the problem so difficult.

That's a fair enough summary of actualities. What's to dispute with that ?

The present catastrophe was caused, imo, by Partition. A synthetic state for refugees was always a recipe for disaster. I don't see how anybody can argue with that, considering the events of the past sixty years, and not forgetting the current dichotomy and disgrace in the West.

 

[lobster]

Both these comments illustrate EXACTLY why the one state is the only solution, and thus will be the one imposed when eventually America stops turning a blind eye to what the Israelis are up, and when the Palestinians finally realise that they have been invaded and that for the sake of the future they need to accept this and create a single nation with tolerance for all different religions and equality of opportunity for all etc.
[/URL])

At the moment the palestinians do not have weapons that can cause much destruction or at least the rockets they do have are not frequent enough to be a huge threat, thats why america are not doing anything to push for a solution.
Take for example when isreal had to with the us support to commit to the cease fire with hezbollah , thats because the rockets were raining down alot everyday and casualties were mounting quickly.
America do not seem to show this concern for palestinian casualities, otherwise something would of happend by now.

quick solution, give the palestians nuclear weapons and pretty quick there get their fair piece of the land.

 

[weltweit]

quick solution, give the palestians nuclear weapons and pretty quick there get their fair piece of the land.

I have proposed this mad solution a number of times and to be honest this is the fear that the US has behind its worry that Iran may want to develop nukes, that it may give that power to Palestine.

The only thing is that mad only ensures the peace between foes directly and only at the nukes level. When USA & USSR had their nuclear arms race there may have been peace between them in a direct sense but they still fought by proxy in other countries. Sadly a state of mad between Israel and Palestine would not stop the suicide bombers continuing on, what would they have to loose.

The opposite to mad, Mutually Assured Non Destruction or MAND is when both sides give up their serious arms bringing peace because they will not have the capabilities to attack and hurt each other.

Sadly this is also impossible because people will only live without weapons when they feel safe and secure, as most people in Great Britain for example feel right now. There is no precedent for a party in the position of Israel giving up their weapons, it just will not happen.

So MAD or MAND will not happen and imho a one state solution is also just so against the current beliefs and desires of the warring factions that no one could force it to occur. For my thinking the solution is two state or nothing.

 

[marksl]

if nations like iran get the nuke bomb one day they arm the palestines with one then it be a equal playing field but probably 5 minutes after that happens, israel and plaestine nuke each other if they don't calm down.

 

[rhys gethin]

if nations like iran get the nuke bomb one day they arm the palestines with one then it be a equal playing field but probably 5 minutes after that happens, israel and plaestine nuke each other if they don't calm down.

Would we - or any other people - 'calm down' if foreigners had seized most of our country and called it their State, occupied the rest, constantly bullied and harassed the people and driven very large numbers to live in refugee camps which they constantly threaten? There will never be a two state solution: take a look at Northern Ireland for an example of that. The vast evil that has been done to the Palestinians is worse imo than what was done to the Irish, and will take as long to settle. A single state will, with luck, allow people to meet as people and be responsive for calls for compensation. South Africa, once part of a neo-nazi alliance with 'Israel' shows what can be done, though they're obviously not out of the wood there yet.

 

[bruise]

how would the situation move towards a one-state solution without it maintaining the 'jewish nature' ie supremacist nature? It could simply enshrine the apartheid system yet more effectively.

 

[rhys gethin]

how would the situation move towards a one-state solution without it maintaining the 'jewish nature' ie supremacist nature? It could simply enshrine the apartheid system yet more effectively.

If it were non-religious - or (better) anti-religious - and non-racist (as most zionists allege 'Israel' to be) where's the problem?

 

[zoltan]

OK, so it seems to be fair to say that the Palestinians were indeed invaded by an Israelis force which proceded to set up "the Jewish state of Israel".

However, what is past is past, and despite the interesting adoption of the role of oppressor, the invasion has to stand. The Palestinians need to accept that they have been invaded; and invaded by a religious state at that, which contrasts completely with their religion and allows them only token freedom of movement.

Furthermore, the most usual suggested solution is the two-state solution. However both people are so intertwined geographically, that this may prove difficult, and in any case the Muslims have the concept of 'Hudni' which allows the pretense of surrender in exchange for enough time to gather strength to continue the fight.

Thus the only solution would seem to be the one that neither side wants, ie. a secular state which incorporates both Israel and Palestine, and which has equality of opportunity for both sides to get on in the economy, to have a family and to live, so that they finally have something to lose by turning to violence.

Therefore compromise from both sides, and an acceptance that they are both there, and so they need to find a way to get along, whatever their differences.

What d'ya think?

Evgery day, the gulfs between the two widen. For every action there is a reaction and nothings seems to work long term

Unfort. I have got to the point where maybe the best solutuion is to wall the the entire shithole area and all Isr. & Pal.s citizens and let them sort it out themselves and ensure that the USA & the the Syrias of this world are not alowed to get involved with either side any longer. I fear that this short sharp shock treatment would eventually force some kind of settlement or understanding.

sad but realistic.